27
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 139:
Line 139: + +
no edit summary
::::A prediction being fulfilled supplies support for a theory, but it doesn't prove it, particularly if more than one theory makes the same prediction. In a sense, creationists have two options to consider: Did something happen naturally, or did it happen supernaturally. Atheists, in contrast, cannot (whilst remaining atheists) consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation, thus ruling some explanations out before even being considered. Just as various theories have their supporters and detractors, and just as some evidence seems to support one theory over another but other evidence might support the the latter over the former, whether a natural or a supernatural explanation is the correct one is often a matter for research and debate. And even if a supernatural cause is agreed upon, there may still be debate about just how that was done. YECs agree, for example, that God was responsible for Noah's Flood, but did He do that by means of collapsing a vapour canopy, by hitting the oceans with a giant meteor, by setting off a catastrophic plate tectonics scenario, or what? (NB: I'm not suggesting that each of those examples is currently considered or equally popular among YECs.) In fact, everything is up for grabs, so to speak, except for where God has specifically said that He did something. He said that He created the universe in six days, so that rules out the Big Bang scenario, but it doesn't rule out Russell Humphreys' superficially-similar model, which for all I know might predict the Lithium levels the same as the Big Bang does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::A prediction being fulfilled supplies support for a theory, but it doesn't prove it, particularly if more than one theory makes the same prediction. In a sense, creationists have two options to consider: Did something happen naturally, or did it happen supernaturally. Atheists, in contrast, cannot (whilst remaining atheists) consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation, thus ruling some explanations out before even being considered. Just as various theories have their supporters and detractors, and just as some evidence seems to support one theory over another but other evidence might support the the latter over the former, whether a natural or a supernatural explanation is the correct one is often a matter for research and debate. And even if a supernatural cause is agreed upon, there may still be debate about just how that was done. YECs agree, for example, that God was responsible for Noah's Flood, but did He do that by means of collapsing a vapour canopy, by hitting the oceans with a giant meteor, by setting off a catastrophic plate tectonics scenario, or what? (NB: I'm not suggesting that each of those examples is currently considered or equally popular among YECs.) In fact, everything is up for grabs, so to speak, except for where God has specifically said that He did something. He said that He created the universe in six days, so that rules out the Big Bang scenario, but it doesn't rule out Russell Humphreys' superficially-similar model, which for all I know might predict the Lithium levels the same as the Big Bang does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: OK, thanks for explaining your position. The problem I have with it is that just because the bible says the universe was created in six days, that doesn't mean that it was. That's just an appeal to authority ("It true because the Bible tells me it's true"). So I don't see how you can rule out the Big Bang theory just based on a sentence in a book, especially when the theory does a remarkably well job in explaining the Li/H abundance ratio, the relationship between galaxy velocities and distances, and the pattern of temperature anisotropities of the cosmic microwave background. Each of those observations are totally unrelated to each other and are described by very different physics, yet one theory (BB) can make predicitions for them all that numerically agree with reality. So if the BB theory is not true, then why does it give numerical predicitions that agree with reality?--[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 04:41, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
== Young earth creationist view ==
== Young earth creationist view ==